Ignore Randall Terry

I don't think Randall Terry was extream for the Pro-Life movement, I think he was to only person in the Pro-Life movement to have to the clout that was not political correct to say about "murdered George R. Tiller, 'was a mass murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed."

Ignore that man that pro-lifers never reined in, even if more extreme things are said routinely right here on this forum!

Markedward:

I re-read my posts. I have not said anything about some sins being more acceptable than others so I don't know to what you are referring.

Yes indeed Christ does forgive all sins, however, if you read the gospels it is really clear, you can reject Christ with a life of sin, and therefore, you will not live eternally with Him.

Again, as for Dr. Tiller, how exactly did he help people? Killing the growing human being in the womb at two months helps how? Ripping a five-month old living fetus limb from limb so it can be removed from a utereus?

Dr. Tiller was paid to kill developing human beings in the womb. An evil act he committed thousands of times in his life.

His evil actions do not excuse his murder. His murderer will also be held to account for his evil act.

I pray for them both.

MikeL4 Christ forgives all sins - that's what it's all about. If only people who live Christian lives are in heaven, than it's one big empty place where Jesus talks to nobody. You are just being selective - you pretend that YOUR sins are 'acceptable' to Jesus but other's 'yucky' sins are unacceptable and unforgivable. I recommend you re-read the gospals. Accepting Jesus and asking forgiveness is what you need. BTW, how did Dr. Tiller not live a good life? I've heard of no evil he's done. He helped people, unlike 99% of the anti-choice people, who think whining online is a virtue.

"Randall Terry speaks for no one but himself and other extremists, he is not the legitimate face of the pro-life movement."

This may be your dearest, most fervent wish, Mr. Reese, but it simply isn't true. Cannot be true.

Much as the Republican party delighted in the antics of Rush Limbaugh in the '80s and '90s, you folks (anti-abortionists) adored Randall Terry and his wingnut organization when he first hit town and began planning and executing the stunts that would make him infamous.

Well, in both cases, the messengers have become huge liabilities for their "constituents," and the powers-that-once-were would love to heave them over the side of the boat.

Unfortunately, they've become waaaay too big for heaving, as the wave caused by the plunge would drown the heavers and the boat.

You all are stuck with these guys. You made them into the monsters they are -- with, admittedly, no little help from the media (which also delighted you back in the day) -- and now they're the face of your organizations.

Next time, maybe you folks will think a bit first before deputizing the village bullies to fight your battles for you.

Markedward:

No, people are considered Saints by the Catholic Church after they have lived exemplary Christian lives and then die. Then the Church examines their life and also attempts to see if any "miracles" if you will, can be attributed to the petitions of this deceased person to God on someone(s) behalf.

Again, Christians don't get a "free to sin as much as you want card" from God, just because you are a Christian. If you are a Christian, you lead a Christian life.

As for Dr. Tiller. He didn't just kill developing human beings with birth defects. He also was perfectly willing to be paid to kill normal developing human beings in the first and second trimester.

As for telling God how to judge people, you might want to re-read my previous post.
Hint: It's the last line.

God Bless.

MikeL4 maybe you don't believe in Christian theology what so ever. However he was killed for his beliefs, which is why people are sainted. Moreover, as a Christian he's forgiven for his sins. That's two strikes. Finally, what evil act did he commit? Aborting a fetus that would have died upon birth or removing a fetus that was already dead? What evil are you talking about? Remember, in the 10 commandments lying is right next to murder. Oh, while you're telling God how he should judge people recall that pride is a sin.

MikeL4 you claim that Dr. Tiller will be held accountable for his evil acts. Setting aside that there is nothing evil in aborting a fetus that will dies once it's born, you're forgetting a couple of things. For one, Tiller was a Christian, so his 'sins' are forgiven. Secondly, he died while serving God, which would also count in his 'judgement. Finally, he knew he could easily be gunned down in a church where he had no body guard or other protection. He risked his life to profess his faith, which puts him on the par with Saints. Fear not for Dr. Tiller's soul, he's sitting at the right hand of Jesus right now.
marcedward1 | June 3, 2009 1:29 PM

--------------------

Marcedward1
How are you today? I say he will be judged for his evil acts, just like his murderer, and just like we all will be held account for our actions in life.

I will not get into a debate with you on Christian theology, but just because someone is a "Christian" doesn't mean they get a free pass in life to do whatever evil they please and then rise with Christ.

As far as weighing the benefits of being an usher on Sunday and killing developing human beings for pay every other day of the week. I don't know how the usher part will help him out on that one.

As to where his soul is right now I will let that rest with God.

If Randall Terry only speaks for himself, as Father Reese claims, why was he leading the band at the O'Reilly Catholic parade protesting Obama at Notre Dame?

We should ignore Randall Terry (which would, by the way, be very convenient for Father Reese) just like "pro-lifers" ignored Dr. George Tiller.

MikeL4 you claim that Dr. Tiller will be held accountable for his evil acts. Setting aside that there is nothing evil in aborting a fetus that will dies once it's born, you're forgetting a couple of things. For one, Tiller was a Christian, so his 'sins' are forgiven. Secondly, he died while serving God, which would also count in his 'judgement. Finally, he knew he could easily be gunned down in a church where he had no body guard or other protection. He risked his life to profess his faith, which puts him on the par with Saints. Fear not for Dr. Tiller's soul, he's sitting at the right hand of Jesus right now.

First, the catholic anti-abortion movement shames itself with it's conduct towards the President of the United States while he was giving a commencement speech at Notre Dame.

Then the sins of the church in Ireland are revealed by it's "christian" treatment of orphans.

Now they call a man murdered in the sanctuary of his church a baby killer for having helped desperate women deal with their wanted yet seriously flawed pregnancies.

You call these actions the practice of religion?

George Tiller was a humble, patriotic, and compassionate man. The quick and easy way anti-abortion proponents demonize Dr. Tiller and call him names should give pause for thought ... perhaps you are the evil ones.

Instead, you should follow the wise words of President Obama and seek common ground on the issue of abortion. Perhaps if the religious leaders spoke with respect and restraint to their opponents we would be well on the way to finding a common ground we all could live with, literally.

Once again some observations:

Abortion boils down to one simple question, when does human life begin? And one paramount observation/law: There is basic human morality that goes beyond the OT and NT. A fetus dies without nourishment. A baby dies without nourishment. I see no difference.

So a growing baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for life!!!!!

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

The religious (Christian?) premise that "life starts at conception" is fundamental to the extreme anti-abortion idea that all abortions are murder. Extreme Christian Fundamentalists.

1. If this is a "Christian Nation" or at least a nation built on Judeo-Christian values, then why didn't the Founding Fathers provide citizenship and constitutional rights to those conceived in the United States? Would you be a citizen if conceived on your parents European Honeymoon?

2. Why do all cemeteries have gravestones that read "Born...Died...", instead of "Conceived...Died..."?

3. Adam and Eve may have been created by God, but it was the "breath of life" that gave birth to their souls. It is not until the first breath that God's creation becomes alive and autonomous with free will.

4. Mothers provide "life-support" for the developing zygote/fetus. Even doctors may terminate CPR or other person-to-person-life-support if they become exhausted or threatened.

5. Surgery to remove a cancerous breast may also be considered a bloody and "violent" method of thwarting God's will (to die of cancer).

6. After a miscarriage, should a woman's body be considered a "crime scene" and the mother a "suspect" in the death, and possible murder (neglect), of the fetus?

In my opinion, the same psychological pathology (delusional, self-righteous, self-serving cultural extremism) and educational process that produces racism, sexism and white supremacy is at the heart of the anti-abortion movement.

ralph5 - one of the best posts I have seen here. You raise a most interesting point - that once you define abortion as "murder", you then have no other choice but to "take the matter into your own hands", so to speak. Just like the lunatic who murdered Tiller. It becomes a moral imperative that must be acted upon.

From article:
"Terry went way over the line when he said that the recently murdered George R. Tiller, "was a mass murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed." "

This statement is just plain inconsistent. For once you accept that abortion is the cold-blooded murder of innocent babies, you are morally bound to intervene, in any way possible. For example, if you were aware of the brutal slaying of thousands of babies or children in your area, could you honestly live with yourself if you did not intervene? Would you not do everything possible to stop such a travesty, including using force to stop the perpetrator? Would anyone condemn you for taking such action?

Another example. The masterminds of the 9/11 attacks killed thousands of innocent Americans, many of them children. If these people had been hunted down and killed, would anyone doubt that “they reaped what they sowed”? Would anyone shed so much as a single tear for these monsters? Now we have the situation where abortions have killed millions! If you truly believe this is cold-blooded murder, what would stop you from intervening using any means necessary? Why would this not be even orders of magnitude worse than the 9/11 attacks and the justice involved with assassinating the perpetrators? Why should anyone who believes abortion is murder shed a tear for George Tilley?

Once you accept abortion is murder, it inevitably leads to the actions of the man who murdered George Tiller.

Realadult:

Take a little bit longer to read all of Jesus' words and not just some of them. Jesus said in Matthew 19/v18 to the "Rich Young Man" on how to gain eternal life, "You shall not kill" was the first commandment Jesus repeated to him.

Dr. Tiller made his living killing developing human beings in the womb. That does not allow his murder.

He will be held to account for his evil acts. His murderer will be held to account for his evil act.

They are both individually responsible for their evil actions.

"Randall Terry speaks for no one but himself and other extremists, he is not the legitimate face of the pro-life movement. Media (and media consumers) beware."
****************************

Absolutely and totally wrong. Randall Terry is a public figure and his message is heard by, and resonates with, many people. His words are designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to incite violence and to encourage people to take the law into their own hands. He, for many people, represents the core of the pro-life movement. He is therefore responsible, plain and simple. To deny this is to toss all concepts of personal responsibiliy out the window.

We have free speech in this country. But when speech is designed mainly to incite violence, it loses the protection guaranteed by the first amendment. Randall Terry's words can therefore not be considered constitutionally protected speech.

Nice attempt at damage control, but you'll have to try harder.

Women have been having abortions and inducing miscarriages since the beginning of time. They were doing these procedures in modern hospitals for years before it became an issue. It's only been in the past 10 years or so that it has obtained some spotlight and a lot of lies and misconceptions have flowed around it. In the end it becomes a philisophical issue that no one has a right to interfere with. Morally, if it's an issue at all, is between that person and God.

Most pro-lifers are hypocrites because they take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner and that is what Jesus is for. So obviously they don't really understand mercy and forgiveness and the true nature of the God they profess to follow.

And lastly, no one in their right mind would ever tell a man what he could or could not do with his body or any aspect thereof.

"The real issue is that anti-choice Christianist zealots are deeply sexually repressed, to the point of being ashamed of natural, human sexual activity. They project their shame onto society by calling for prohibitions on sex education in schools, banning the distribution or use of condoms, and, yes, calling for a legal ban of abortions."
***************************

Thank you! Finally someone understands the real issue! It's the sex! The fact that sex leads to unwanted pregnancies, abortions and STDs just happens to be convenient excuses for them to preach and attempt to control the sexual activities of others. These people just don't like sex - plain and simple.

I agree with Fr. Reese's column, but I also heard a couple of practicing Catholic say that although they don't condone murder, Dr. Tiller killed many babies. I heard no sympathy for him or his family, but maybe, because I'm pro-choice, I'm wrong.

Maybe if the Lutherans took guns to church like their inbred evangelical cousins, we could have had more bloodshed in the name of Christ.

I don't favor abortion, especially late term, but respect a woman's right to choose. Beck, O'Reilly, Dobson, Hannity and Limbaugh are enemies of mutual respect in America. They rally the mentally deficient for a buck.

Tiller killed over 60,000 defensless children. I wonder how many of them were for the physical well being of the Mother?

Tillers murder was wrong and so was the sanctioned murders of over 60,000 babies at Tillers hands.

I wonder if the Pro-Baby Killers next push will be for "aborting" the elderly, when they become a "burden" on them and society in general??

Any arguements for late term abortions are weak and immoral.

Tiller was a killer.

The pop-culture trash-talking Catholic gutter-boy O'Reilly screaming "Tiller the Baby Killer," "Tiller the Baby Killer," "Tiller the Baby Killer," over and over and over again speaks loudly about the "pro-life" crowd. Exactly what is it that the "pro-lifers" want? To criminalize women who seek abortion, to drive physicians out of the practice with legal threats and threats of force, and, to parade around as though Wally and Beaver Cleaver have been restored as rightful cultural icons-while women are thrust back into grimy rooms seeking abortions from charlatans on the run.

What a blasphemy masquerading as sanctimony. Bbbbfffttt.

" I take great offense with the term pro-life. Pro-choice people aren't anti-life,, and those opposing abortion are quite often pro-death penalty, former Prez GW Bush for one. So quit it!!!" Note that the US has executed less than a thousand people in all over the last 30 years. On the other hand more than a million abortions are performed every year. Do you see some difference in scale?

I think that the words" choice" and "murder" are both inappropriate. Bush "chose" to invade Iraq. Does that mean we support the invasion because we support choice? Someone "chose" to kill Tiller. Do we support that action because we support choice? When we scream for choice, we forget to ask, "Choice for what?" If it is a choice to kill, say it out loud that it is a choice to kill, don't hide behind the neutral sounding word "choice." At the same time, calling abortion murder is foolish because, as many of us admit, people do not really want to treat it as murder. It should be treated as undesirable and sanctioned with moderate penalties. In New York city, you can be fined $350 for honking a horn. But if there was a $350 fine for killing an unborn child, the Supreme Court would strike it down. There is something inhumane about an America which regards the honking of a horn as a more offensive action than taking the life of a living human. Of course I am talking about abortions performed as a matter of constitutional right, not those where there is an emergency requiring abortion.
The first kind is very troubling and probably ought not to be legal. The second kind should not be illegal.

I recently read an article that postulated something I have often thought about: People don't REALLY believe that a baby is being murdered, when an abortion takes place.
They may say so, but they don't believe it. If they did, then what kind of moral monster stands outside a building where they KNOW, that inside babies are being brutally murdered, and does nothing substantive to stop that crime?

I have NO agreement with those people who DO believe they have the right to kill abortion doctors. But I also can see that if you truly believe that a baby is being murdered, morally you have no real choice but to take real action.
If my neighbors KNEW someone was in my house and going to kill me, wouldn't their inaction be morally reprehensible?
Does saying "Well anything I do will just get me arrested and in trouble myself" actually cover your responsibility to an about-to-be-murdered baby?

What IS true, is that people don't like abortion. And from there we begin arguing and ratcheting up the rhetoric to the point where we make jumps across rhetorical valley's with little holding us up but our real emotions. This is what in part makes us human. But it is also dangerous.

Just like the word marriage has had a traditional meaning, and it now rankles many when non-traditional partners want to use that word to describe their unions, so does the word murder have a traditional meaning,normally reserved for people who are killed outside of their mother's womb. Interestingly, the very people who insist on using the word marriage in its traditional sense, find no need to give this same 'respect' to the word murder. Instead they use it in rhetorical flourishes against a legal medical procedure and claim to actually believe it. Yet when you ask where were they when these horrific murders were taking place they have no good answer but to say that they are pro-life. When you ask how they feel about the man who stopped those 'murders' by killing the doctor performing them, they distance themselves from him in any way they can, including repeating that they are pro-life.

I believe, that they really don't believe babies are being murdered. Most of the pro-lifers I have met are very nice people, good people. They would never stand by while a baby was really being murdered. I believe they know its not murder, but can not otherwise describe the horror of what they contemplate when imagining an abortion of a human life in the womb. So then rhetoric comes in strong, the word murder is used because to them it makes sense, a human life has been exterminated. But even so, they must not really see it as the same as killing a baby, or why would they just be standing there?

I get a kick out of it when an institution in which child abuse and child rape has been endemic for as long as records have been kept comments on morality. Just imagine what kinds of evil this cult must have been responsible for for the better part of the last two thousand years. The O'Reillys of this country pander to the backward, the stupid, the cult members, but neither they nor the cults disclose the true agenda. It's only our version of the Taliban without the guts to admit it. Demonize a service provider and don't mention the fact that over 45 million American women have requested this service. Smear the doctor by saying he did it for the money when he was almost 70 and could have retired comfortably. Hide the fact that the true cult agenda is no different from the Taliban. Marginalize and control women: especially when it comes to reproduction.

Realadult You feel it is wrong to call anyone evil and that we live in a nation of laws. 160 years ago it was legal to be an escaped slave catcher and return someone trying to escape slavery to his/her owner to be tortured in punishment. Would you sanction calling such a person evil?

It is of course telling that jneps tries to make U.S. pro-life people responsible for the life or death of every poor child on the planet in an attempt to distract from the fact that the richest nation on Earth kills 3,000 babies a day without batting an eye.

Mikel4, just because you know how to post 500 times doesn't make what you say right. You live in a nation of laws, and have no right whatsoever to call someone evil in the way you do. If you don't understand this do 2 things: look up the part in the Bible where Jesus says let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and 2. move to the Islamic Republic of Iran where someone is evil because someone who thinks they understand God's law says so.

jneps,

You noted:

"30,000 of whom under the age of five die each day from preventable causes related to conditions of extreme poverty?"

And your references to support your statistics are???

If the anti-choice crowd is so concerned about child welfare, then why is it that there is no outcry from them regarding the plight of children in the world’s poorest countries, over 30,000 of whom under the age of five die each day from preventable causes related to conditions of extreme poverty? Life is life! The answer to this question seems simple: they are interested in controlling lives, not saving them!

"The US Law is not going to change anytime soon, and it would be a shame for the Church if this issue fomented a veritable Civil War between Protestants and Catholics in America."

Astonishing: "Stop calling abortion murder, or somebody will cap some of your priests in revenge."

Yes, that'll ratchet the rhetoric right on down...

It would have been more useful to the pro-life cause had Fr. Reese dedicated his column to promoting the "mainstream leaders" who promote the pro-life message in the way Fr. Reese believes most effective, rather than merely attacking Terry.

That is, assuming Fr. Reese is interested in the victory of the pro-life cause, and not just in moving the issue to the comfortable back-burner of "reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably..." while hundreds of thousands of lives are snuffed out every year.

If moderate Catholics do not want an assassination game over the abortion issue, they must appeal to their own extremist leaders not to preach that abortion is murder. Start with the American Catholic Council of Bishops (ACCOB) and the Organization of Texas Bishops. They are the most radical and venal.

If Catholics cannot do that, then the Church, as it has normatively done over the centuries, must recant their strong position on abortion established in 1869 by Pius IX, and go back to accepting at least first term abortion as an individual choice (as it was for three hundred years before Pius IX). Pius' IX determination that life begins at conception was interpreted by the Bishops as "Abortion is Murder." Catholics must know that this is an unusual position by the Church over the ages, and is commonly reversed by the Vatican.

I am not a perfect student of Church history, but I tend to believe that those times over the ages when the Church changed their doctrine to be less condemning of abortion was when they lived in times like these when the Laws of States and the policies of the Church were in conflict and the conflict was causing unacceptable violence and even threatening the lives of Catholic clergy in revenge for assassinations of abortionists. Remember, militant anti-abortionists are now classified as Right Wing Extremists by the US Department of Home Security.

It is time for the Church to give in on this one in the name of peace, and soften their stance. Only evil can come otherwise.

The Church has to act now. The US Law is not going to change anytime soon, and it would be a shame for the Church if this issue fomented a veritable Civil War between Protestants and Catholics in America.

Again what Father Reese should emphasize and never does:

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1

In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills and chastity belts are no protection against STDs.

Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor.

Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

Bruce 18 wrote:

As an example, the Mateosf post saying "All anti-choicers, including Meese, want to force women to have babies against their will, consistent with 2,000 years of Christianist condescension to and physical domnination of women." completely ignores the fact that women retain the ultimate choice: No sex, no kid.

__________________

No sex, no kid.

Bruce, your biological brilliance shines here. It is true, in fact, if women refrained from sex, there would be no pregnancy and therefore no abortion.

I think it's very important to hammer this point home, as it's at the core of the real issue here: the Christianist fundamentalists aren't really concerned about life - Dr. Tiller's assassin proved that, yet again, as do the zealots who oppose funding for AIDS research and call for "death to gays" etc.

The real issue is that anti-choice Christianist zealots are deeply sexually repressed, to the point of being ashamed of natural, human sexual activity. They project their shame onto society by calling for prohibitions on sex education in schools, banning the distribution or use of condoms, and, yes, calling for a legal ban of abortions.

As I mentioned before, banning abortion would legalize and institutionalize routine, profound violence against women in the form of forced pregnancy; the Christianists are highly unlikely to convince other adults to stop screwing when their own leaders get caught bopping some hooker (gay, straight or indifferent) every few months or so - sex is, after all, one of the few things all humans know how to do, even right-wing Christianist preachers and moralizers, though I wouldn't count on the experience being particularly enjoyable.

So we could summarize the entire pro-choice/anti-choice debate thusly:

A radical sects' fear of sex, projected at scale onto the public sphere. The irony is that, rather than murder, harassment and violent protest, there's an easy solution for Christianists:

They could always just screw themselves.

Arancia12:

Culpable and responsible, hmm. Not much difference in my book. Are you culpable for the evil committed by Dr. Tiller because you support the right to kill developing human beings in the womb or are you responsible? I say neither. His evil is his own. You fail when you do not stop violence against the most defensless of human beings.

As for me not repudiating violence that gets you a big, "huh?". Abortions are nothing but violence. I also specifically have mentioned the evil act, repeatedly, committed by the murderer of Dr. Tiller.

I simply do not cede your attempt to tar everyone who disagrees with you on abortion as being "culpable" for the acts of an individual.

As for people on this blog disagreeing with me, couple of points. Washington DC is a very liberal area. Secondly, I don't take my moral cue by looking to see whether other people agree with me or not.

As for you being in the military. Congratulations. It is a noble calling. It still doesn't make all responsible for the acts of an individual.

God bless.

MikeL, I didn't say you were responsible, I said culpable but if you feel responsible then perhaps you are.

If you read the postings here you will note most disagree with you, they do hold Randall Terry, Operation Rescue, Bill O'Reilly and those like you who will not repudiate violence accountable. You may continue to deny it but it doesn't change the facts.

As Americans who elect our government we are all responsible for its actions. We share this tremendous responsibility even though we may not agree with the policies because we are a country, a federation of states joined together for the common good.

Anti-choice activists who use inciting language are as responsible as the Roerders for the violence perpetrated.

I spent a career in the military so perhaps I understand how teams operate better than you do. In the military we are all part of the chain and one members bad behavior affects us all.

It's sad you do not comprehend your role in violence. Those who read your words do.

Aracia12:

My goodness. I go to eat dinner and I come back and, according to you, now I am also responsible for the murder of Dr. Tiller.

No, the individual who chose to murder Dr. Tiller is alone responsible for that evil. Dr. Tiller is also responsible for the evil he committed.

Because those of us who are pro-life rightly point out that those like Dr. Tiller killed developing human beings in the womb is speaking truth. Where is my lie?

Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions for pay. He would take a five-month fetus and dismember it to remove it from a uterus piece by piece. He would partially deliver an eight-month fetus, puncture it's skull, suck out its brains to collapse it's skull (which of course killed it) and then deliver the corpse. {This became illegal}

Is it wrong for protestors to point out the truth of what this man did for pay? Hardly.

Dr. Tiller will answer for his evil. His murderer will answer for his. They are both alone responsible for their actions.

I hope the Christains take some comfort to remember Dr. Tiller was gunned down while serving God. His office was protected, his home was protected, but the one place he went to where he wasn't safe was church, and he went anyway. He literally died for his faith (this is what saints do) and working for God. I'm sure all the Christians who post here are happy knowing he's in heaven now at the right hand of Jesus.

Aracia12:
No, sorry, you are incorrect. Fortunately, those who believe it is okay to kill developing human beings in the womb are declining. You can try and make all responsible for the act of one, but it still won't work. Fortunately, most people see through your failed logic.
Posted by: MikeL4
_________________

Mike, you prove you are also culpable for Dr. Tiller's murder. Those who are pro-choice are not declining and by your fundamentalist, give-no-quarter posting you drive more from your position every day. You try to make yourself not responsible and clear your conscience by denying the role of the anti-choice screamers and haters in the actions of Roeder and other murderers but it's a fool's chore.

You have made up your mind and no amount of rational thinking can change it. You speak from the heart but without any sympathy for the plight of others. There is no room for reason in your view of the world and this is exactly what so many find alarming. Perhaps you should note when damning those who provide help to women in distress that there, but for the grace of God, go you.

It is this all or nothing, unsympathetic worldview that inspires violence and will be the end of the anti-choice movement. It can't happen too soon.

Aracia12:

No, sorry, you are incorrect. Fortunately, those who believe it is okay to kill developing human beings in the womb are declining. You can try and make all responsible for the act of one, but it still won't work. Fortunately, most people see through your failed logic.

Arancia 12:
Evil is not relative. Your actions in life are your own, as are mine. Dr. Tiller committed his evil acts for his personal profit. They are his own. His murderer committed his own evil actions for his own ideals.
You cannot make a persons personal actions represent more than what they are. An individual act.
Posted by: MikeL4
____________________

Unfortunately you can make an idividual act reflect on a group when the group is responsible for the rhetoric that drives the act.

There is no refuting this. Our legal system hold those who aid and abet a crime responsible.

You live in a society that separates religion from state so your definition of evil has no legal standing. Evil may not be relative, but evil is not prosecutable, murder is.

Sadly, when fundamentalists are egged on to achieve the kingdom of God through violence, terrible things happen. The Catholic Church tortured people to save their immortal souls. The act was not just the responsbility of the priests or persons who tortured but of the Church who encouraged the actions. Roeder and those who encouraged his vile actions are no different than jihadish martyrs.

Fortunately, you are in the minority.

Arancia 12:

Evil is not relative. Your actions in life are your own, as are mine. Dr. Tiller committed his evil acts for his personal profit. They are his own. His murderer committed his own evil actions for his own ideals.

You cannot make a persons personal actions represent more than what they are. An individual act.

O'Reilly Catholics and Palin evangelicals who had wet dreams over calling Obama a terrorist and linking him to Bill Ayres, now find themselves on the other side of the barrel, sniveling and whining in their self-righteousness that anyone would have the gall to call their home grown Taliban terrorists as well and although Palin was quick to call Obama a terrorist, she refused to define the murder of pro-choice doctors the same way.

I come across as someone who hates evangelicals, Mormons an Catholics but I don't hate these people. I really don't mind if they get together with their own to primp and pray - it's their Constitutional right. What I hate are the leaders of their institutions who, like modern day Hitlers, rally their flocks through hatred, torture exclusion and, yes, sometimes murder of those they disagree with in the name of Jesus.

I hate the blatant hypocrisy that goes with their moralizing at others and trying to change America into their own private theocracy. I know this hatred of mine looks like I'm throwing stones from glass houses but the big difference is I don't call myself a "Christian" religion and hate, torture, molest, exclude and even murder in the name of poor old Jesus.

"Randall Terry speaks for no one but himself and other extremists, he is not the legitimate face of the pro-life movement. Media (and media consumers) beware."

You could look at this one of two ways: either all the folks who make up the "pro-life" movement have nothing to do with the "legitimate face of the pro-life movement," or the violent rhetoric used by the pro-life movement for decades has had the logical effect.

It's like the madrassas in Saudi Arabia trying to distance themselves from decades of violent and eliminationist rhetoric. "But Islam is a religion of peace!"

When so-called moderates incite the fringe to violence, don't be surprised when everyone (including the fringe-types) come to the logical conclusion.

Or Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Thoughtful and well written...

As an example, the Mateosf post saying "All anti-choicers, including Meese, want to force women to have babies against their will, consistent with 2,000 years of Christianist condescension to and physical domnination of women." completely ignores the fact that women retain the ultimate choice: No sex, no kid. I understand neither women, nor men for that matter, might like that choice, but that is the way the world is organized, Unfortunately we cant really change that.
Posted by: bruce18
_____________________

The ignorance of this post is astounding. How are children ever to be produced if women are afraid that a terribly deformed fetus must be carried to term?

Make no mistake, late term abortions are medical issues. Sometimes the fetus is not viable, sometimes its deformaties are horrific, sometimes the health of the mother is at stake.

If women wish to avoid these issues they must never, never have sex...period.

You, sir, are not qualified to make medical decisions. A doctor, in private conference with a woman, is. While you have a right to question the decision you have no moral or legal right to interfere with it.

In one fell swoop you have relegated women to second class citizenry. The rights of a developing human take precedence over the rights of the developed woman. Who gave you the authority to make that rule? Why do you get to decide if a woman should face irrevesible damage to her health?

You next step of course is to ensure women are in burqas and breeding.

It's all so easy in your world. Apparently you believe all late term abortions are for convenience. How truly ignorant.

Arancia12:
Dr. Tiller's evil actions were his own. His killer's evil actions were his own. The pro-abortion crowd seeks to damage the pro-life movement with the actions of an individual. It won't, and doesn't, work.
Posted by: MikeL4
_________________

Again, evil is a subjective term used by the religious. Murder is a legal term. Roeder committed murder...Tiller committed evil IN YOUR OPINION, but not in mine.

We are not a nation of Christian laws like Iran is a nation of Islamic laws and therefore we follow the rule of democratic law.

Unfortunately Roeder's action is not his own because he murdered for the anti-choice movement. He is one of their own.

Just as I am responsible for the actions of my nation even though I did not approve them, the anti-choice movement is responsible for Roeder's actions.

I do not seek to damage the anti-choice movement. I seek to expose them for what they are; domestic terrorists and those who tolerate and give aid to domestic terrorists. The anti-choice movement should have considered what the terrorist rhetoric of Randall Terry and the others would incite and, if they didn't approve of murder, should have purged them from their midst. You can no more wash your hands of the responsibility for this action as I can wash my hands of responsibillity for the Iraq war.

As the saying goes, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Mr Reese:

Your ability to simplify extremely complicated and divisive issues is just remarkable! For example: "The media loves to present the most radical face...blacks (Black Panthers),feminists (burning bras), gays (drag queens)...", these were issues that dealing with constitutionally protected civil rights of entire sections of society.

"[B]urning bras" is not extremism, its the burning of underwear! Your emphasis should be on the symbolism of what that act stood for and not the idea that they were wild eyed "feminists" showing off for the news media.

So too, the Black Panthers didn't suddenly appear on the scene looking for camera time with the networks, theirs was a violent (and incorrect) response to more than a century of racial oppression that was,at one time, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

Now, juxtapose those images past government and social oppression with the modern terrorist Randall Terry . Mr Reese, there is no comparison! The Operation Rescues of this country are nothing more than the textbook definition of terrorism and ARE NOT seeking social justice. They seek nothing but the furtherance of their religious beliefs and are willing to ignore EVERY tenet of that belief in order to gain it. Even if that means the taking of human life.

Are right wing religious extremest terrorist bullet proof? I seriously do not think that they are.

You better be watching your backs.

Arancia12:

Dr. Tiller's evil actions were his own. His killer's evil actions were his own. The pro-abortion crowd seeks to damage the pro-life movement with the actions of an individual. It won't, and doesn't, work.

My litmus test for a radical or extremist of any bent or for any cause is that he/she would prefer a dictatorship supporting his/her cause to a democracy that doesn't.

I take no joy from the murder of this murderer. It is not reasonable to take life without due process, whether the life is that of an abortionist or that of the pre-born infant whose death "reduces misery" for others who find her inconvenient.
Dr. Tiller was just as certainly murdered as those children he killed in their final weeks of gestation. His murder should be decried - just as should those of his victims.
There are no 'sides' here: we shouldn't kill people - any people, at all - to solve social problems.
Posted by: practica1
__________________

Murder is a legal term, Pratical1. Abortion is not illegal in this country and Dr. Tiller did nothing illegal. He did not murder anyone.

If you disapprove of the rights of women to confer on medical issues with their doctor and choose a course of action (and these decisions are medical issues) then please allow me to determine whether you can have cancer treatment or prostrate surgery. One could argue that God determines should live or die so you have no right to pursue medical treatment to prolong a life God has determined must end.

Dr. Tiller was an evil man. His killer also committed an evil act. Both men will be judged for their own actions, as we all will be. The pro-life cause is not tainted nor tarred by the evil actions of an individual.
Maybe if those like Fr. Reese spoke out for Life more frequently, men like Randall Terry wouldn't be heard. Instead, Fr. Reese chooses to be silent and give his endoresment to those who claim a right to kill developing human beings in the womb.
Posted by: MikeL4
___________________________

You are terribly misguided, MikeL4. The anti-choice movement is as tainted by the actions of a single person as the Muslim religion was tainted by the actions of Osama bin Ladin.

How many people challeged the American Muslim community because they felt they did not speak out strongly enough against radical Muslims or try to eradicate them from their ranks? The anti-choice movement must do the same.

It's not just the actions of one person, it's the actions of many. Terry is the head of Operation Rescue. He has not been asked to step down by its members. Terry did not state that Roeder did something evil only that Tiller didn't have a chance to make his peace with God. I suppose we can expect the next provider to be tortured into begging God for forgiveness prior to being murdered.

Randall Terry said he felt, "Every man deserves to have a trial of a jury of his peers and then a proper execution." If that statement doesn't strike fear and loathing into the hearts of all Americans then we have truly become soulless.

The anti-choice movement needs to purge its ranks of domestic terrorists and those who spew hate before they can begin to preach about the sanctity of life. The government needs to treat those who incite murder the same as domestic terrorists and mafioso and they need to pursue them with the same diligence and singleness of purpose as they pursue syndicated crime.

Thank you, MATEOSF. I have been following these issues for a long time, and I have never seen anyone articulate the anti-choice position quite so clearly as your, "Meese [I assume you mean Reese] and his brothers in arms seek legalized, routine violence against women." If "main-stream pro-life [here, this means anti-choice] leaders are appalled" at Randall Terry, as Reese says, it is because he is less covertly violent than they would like. They are afraid, justifiably, in my view, that mainstream America will look Randall Terry and see the true face of the anti-choice movement.

There may be pro-life moderates, as BEVJIMS1 says, but there are no anti-choice moderates. There are only the more overtly and more covertly violent. Again, as BEVJIMS1 says, it's time to choose sides. Let us call these people what they are, loudly and clearly, and not just Randall Terry.

I take no joy from the murder of this murderer. It is not reasonable to take life without due process, whether the life is that of an abortionist or that of the pre-born infant whose death "reduces misery" for others who find her inconvenient.

Dr. Tiller was just as certainly murdered as those children he killed in their final weeks of gestation. His murder should be decried - just as should those of his victims.

There are no 'sides' here: we shouldn't kill people - any people, at all - to solve social problems.

Why aren't the actions and crimes committed by these groups defined as "terrorist events"? Why does the media give them a pass? Must they have a different color skin or accent to be a terrorist?

I agree with BevJimS1. Randall Terry is dangerous and he needs to be exposed. Roeder simply took Terry's (and Bill O'Reilly's) terrorist rhetoric and turned it into terrorist action. These people are domestic terrorists on the level of Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaszinski.

Roeder is the same as the radical Muslim terrorists that the right uses as a to instill fear in Americans; he was willing to do whatever it took to receive his reward in heaven. The anti-choice movement knows that the spoils go to the victor. If they succeed in discouraging providers through the use of terrorism they will be hailed as heroes.

Terry and his kind should be treated as domestic terrorists because they are using the tool of violence to instill terror in physicians. Among the faithful they are already heroes. Randall Terry thinks he can wash his hands of complicity in murder but he is wrong. He can no more wash his hands of Tiller's murder than Pilot could of Jesus'.

Remember how Henry II of England got rid of his nemesis Thomas Becket? Henry said "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" Four of his men assassinated Becket and Henry claimed complete innocence but his words were taken as an order by his men.

What has this country come to? We supposed to be a nation of laws where rational men and women determine the will of the people, not where a few true believers attempt to impose their will through murder.

Urging us to ignore the leader of the radical Christian extremist right is like saying we should ignore the leaders of the radical Islamic extremists as well.

Both are equally dangerous and, unless their is a special Cheney "above-the-law" theocratic exception for Christian terrorists, neocons who support "rendition," "harsh interrogation" and "Guantamao detention", should be calling for the same for their own. Not something you will hear, though, from Republican Party Leader Limbaugh or from RNC Fox News.
-

for all you disgusted with my comments, I'm just leaning toward the "you have to fight fire with fire" attitude against these domestic terrorist that are allowed to flourish amongst us

Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Dr. Barnett Slepian, Dr. George Patterson and Dr. George Tiller should all be remembered fondly and with thanks for reducing the amount of misery in the world.

None of them took any joy in the destruction of potential human beings. However, their efforts prevented the destruction of many women's lives, and prevented lives of deprivation and abuse of unwanted children.

May the names of their killers never be remembered, only that they were murdered.

"The pro-life cause is not tainted nor tarred by the evil actions of an individual."

BS. Tainted, pure and simple. What the hell do you expect when these people whip their members into a frenzy of self-righteous hate and revenge?

I think it's time Homeland Security takes a close look at Mr. Terry and his associates at Operation Rescue and the other radical anti-abortion organizations.

Calling on all law abiding citizens of America! DEATHT TO RANDALL TERRY and ALL members of Operation Rescue!!!

Operation Rescue = Terrorist Organization, round em up, send em to Gitmo, break out the waterboards and the horny interrogators who seem to like the booty of their victims.

I don't know who at Operation Rescue has said what, but apparently the organization's CURRENT Senior Policy Advisor has been convicted of conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic, and Roeder had her phone number with him when he was caught.

I disagree with you completely when you trivialize Randall Terry. Randall Terry is a leader of a murderous bunch of vigilantes called anti-abortionist. This ruthless, heartless group of murderers could care less about the people they kill nor do they care about God himself.

This nasty pack of rats, murderers in the name of the lord, prides themselves in their disdain for God. They presume that God needs their help in deciding when life begins. They completely disregard God’s commandments when they kill and condone killing.

Anti-abortionist are ruthless killers who deserve the same compassion from God that they showed to Dr. Tiller. Ralph Terry may be a delusional leader of this pack of vigilantes but he is a leader which is a sad commentary.

Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, James Barrett, Shannon Lowney, Lee Ann Nichols, Robert Sanderson, Dr. Barnett Slepian, Dr. George Patterson and now, on the second attempt, Dr. George Tiller ... all dead since 1993 at the hands of domestic terrorists affiliated with and driven by the rhetoric of those who call themselves pro-life. I'd bet most folks don't remember a single name other than that of Dr. Tiller. And I'd likewise bet that most don't remember the names of their killers, all of whom are, to a small segment of our population, major heroes whose acts were justified in the name of "unborn children."

Harsh words and inflammatory rhetoric have consequences, as we've seen repeatedly year after year. The worst abusers are usually those who complain loudest at the "threat" to their "right to free speech." Yesterday Operation Rescue joined ranks with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck, by denying responsibility for Dr. Tiller's killing while simultaneously complaining that their "free speech" is somehow handicapped by the fact of his murder. Terry, in fact, complained that pro-lifers, by moderating their language, would be "surrendering" their best and most effective rhetoric.

There is no threat, and our right to free speech has been defined and its extent limited by decision of The Supreme Court.

You may not falsely "cry fire in a crowded theater."

That is precisely what Operation Rescue and Randall Terry have been doing for years and the results have been precisely what we should have expected, that is murder and mayhem, over and over, in the name of free speech.

Dr. Tiller was an evil man. His killer also committed an evil act. Both men will be judged for their own actions, as we all will be. The pro-life cause is not tainted nor tarred by the evil actions of an individual.

Maybe if those like Fr. Reese spoke out for Life more frequently, men like Randall Terry wouldn't be heard. Instead, Fr. Reese chooses to be silent and give his endoresment to those who claim a right to kill developing human beings in the womb.

When the anti-abortion movement constantly calls its opponents "baby killers" and "murderers", it is inevitably going to motivate some individuals to take violent action for the cause. They can't run away from the consequences of their inflammatory rhetoric.

Thoughtful and well written. Our press does exacerbate the problems we face by highlighting the most extreme positions as news. Furthermore, whatever anyone says is reported as "news" and fact with no thought or analysis.
As an example, the Mateosf post saying "All anti-choicers, including Meese, want to force women to have babies against their will, consistent with 2,000 years of Christianist condescension to and physical domnination of women." completely ignores the fact that women retain the ultimate choice: No sex, no kid. I understand neither women, nor men for that matter, might like that choice, but that is the way the world is organized, Unfortunately we cant really change that.

Terry should be given the Jeremiah Wright/Jerry Falwell treatment- cherrypick the most offensive and hateful things he's said or written and harp on them. This is the correct way to marginalize someone's opinion and thus, their influence on society. We should reduce Terry to his most inflamatory comments and blame him for antiabortion extremism. Only guys like Terry can succeed in creating sympathy for the pro-choice movement.

A well-written and deeply disingenuous post.

The radical Christianists who oppose abortion would do violence to any woman whose body they would use for their own pseudo-religious cause.

There are plenty of well-spoken, seemingly thoughtful anti-choice voices, like Meese's, who would have us believe that they don't believe in violence, and only fight their cause on moral and ethical grounds. B.S.

All anti-choicers, including Meese, want to force women to have babies against their will, consistent with 2,000 years of Christianist condescension to and physical domnination of women. I can think of a few acts against women that would be more violent in nature than forced pregnancy, but only a few.

Don't let the smooth speech fool you: Meese and his brothers in arms seek legalized, routine violence against women. The murder of Dr. Tiller is a natural outgrowth of, and completely consistent with, their goals.

I sincerely hope that this event will have the effect of forcing folks from the antiabortion community to grow up and take a serious look at both their positions and their tactics. Honestly. If their aim is to affect public policy, there has never been a better time than now to sit down and have a sober discussion on the goals of a civilized society, but it will require an end to the terrorism. This is their Belfast Agreement moment if they want to take it.

As another commenter pointed out, there's nothing pro-life about the views of many of those who are the most vocal opponents of reproductive choice.

Many conservatives speak of abortion providers as murderers, failing to see the hypocrisy in their fervent support of the death penalty. Further, they decry as "socialism" the social programs that would bring dignity to the lives of the (largely) poverty-stricken children whose births are ensured by the anti-choice movement.

It's ironic that the "pro-life" community, particularly the Catholics, are actually the enablers of abortion.
They are pro-life, but anti-contraception which decreases the need for abortion;
They are pro-life, but anti sex education;
They are pro-life, but anti government programs which provide family planning services.
The reality is that the pro-life community is simply about control - control of reproductive education and services.
There is no questeion that if their greatest wish became law, the next battleground would be contraception.
Ignoring Randall Terry is a huge mistake - this is the face of the pro-life movement.
It's all about control.

The anti-abortion wacko fringe has become the "Taliban" of American society. There's no substantive difference between the two. Both are comprised of programmed obsessives and reptilian brain psychotics, claiming to have "religious" validation to intimidate or murder anyone who doesn't live by their beliefs. In the reality of human life, there is nothing more insane than one who insists that everyone else must do as they say, because only they can "speak for God".

For starters, I take great offense with the term pro-life. Pro-choice people aren't anti-life,, and those opposing abortion are quite often pro-death penalty, former Prez GW Bush for one. So quit it!!! They are anti-abortionists, not pro-lifers. Terry is obviously not a pro-lifer. Probably only Buddists and Harikrishnas can take that title.

You are wrong Reese. We must not ignore those who incite violence. They must be faced down. People must be forced to choose whether they side with Terry's version of being pro-life or not. Ignoring him will only allow other pro-lifers who listen to his unchallenged rhetoric to come to the same conclusion, and another law abiding citizen will become a murderer in the name of God.

Ignoring Terry is just what he wants. It keeps the heat off and lets him drive the rhetoric unchallenged. Terry must be confronted, continually, and his message countered again and again and again by moderates and especially by pro-life moderates. The first thing to find out is where the murderer got the idea that Dr. Tiller needed to be murdered. If it was from Terry's rhetoric then Terry needs to be confronted with that fact and asked over and over how death is part of being pro-life. You either challenge those who incite violence or you allow them to incite violence. You either speak up against this voilence done in the name of your cause or you tacitly allow it in the name of your cause. Its time to choose sides Reese. The war is on. You cannot remain neutral if you care a lick for the pro-life movement.